Portrait and Landscape Lenses

<p>I made the transition. Sold my Nikon D300 and bought myself the all glorious Canon 5D Mark III. I don't regret it one bit. I'm still learning as it has different buttons but it is awesome. <br>

Being new to Canon, the first lens I bought was the Canon EF 50mm 1.4USM. It is sharp and fast. It's my first lens but not my last.<br>

<br />I mainly do landscape photography but on occasion some portrait work too. My question is, which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light.<br>

<br />And, I also need some suggestion for landscape lenses. </p>

<p>I'm asking for help because I know nothing about Canon lenses but I'm beyond excited and happy that I made the transition from Nikon to Canon. </p>

<p>What is wrong with the 50 you have as a portrait lens? I use mine a lot, if it isn't long enough for you the 85 f1.8 is, perhaps, even better then the 50 f1.4 and is reasonably priced. If that is too close to the 50 then the 100 f2 is a great "portrait" lens that is widely overlooked. If that is not long enough then the 135 f2L has an unmatched reputation as one of the greatest portrait lenses ever.</p>

<p>For landscapes nothing beats, or comes close to (with the possible exception of the 17mm TS-E), the TS-E 24mm MkII. Expensive but worth every penny and some.</p>

>>> My question is, which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light. <P>

 

35mm f/1.4 L. It's the only lens I use for portraiture on my full-frame and is also very good indoors in low light. <a href= "http://citysnaps.net/2011%20photos/TL%20Faces%202011/">These were all shot with that combination.</a>

<p>70 to 90mm would be a perfect portrait lens with your full frame sensor, so the 85mm mentioned above is probably the ideal. </p>

I'd use the 50 unless you're having some sort of problem with it.

I use the TS-E 24mm for a lot of landscapes. Everything from about your toes to infinity can be sharp. You have to be careful here, mainly in the early mornings to close to evenings. It's manual focus only. I've missed a few really special shots up in Yosemite and Death Valley but the 16-35 backup worked ok, but not what I was looking for. There was some angle displacement with the 16-35. Not so with the great TS-E 24mm . If you set it up correctly, the scene you are taking is magically uniform on all sides and heights are incredibly sharp. The 90 TS is fantastic as well, however I use it for taking photos of paintings. Again you can make all of the 4 corners perfect. It's the only lens I've used that will do this type of work. It's also a macro. This comes in real handy when taking food shots and stuff like watches. The lighting takes hours to get it right. This type of shooting for me is by far the hardest type of photography. Well it works well for portraits if the subject is willing to wait. With models it's not a problem.

 

Portraits - if I have the room I enjoy the 70-200, 2.8L. For close-ups I'll throw on a German soft focus filter Zeiss. Much less retouching and the filter doesn't make the people look out of focus. With lenses like this you can add comfort to the person or people because of the distance from the people. For me this leaves out the 50mm almost always. People can get weird about that comfort space between the camera and the subject from the 50mm and smaller, unless you don't use a full frame camera. Then the 50mm is about an 80mm and that is a good distance.

>>> I'd use the 50 unless you're having some sort of problem with it.

 

>>>> Being new to Canon, the first lens I bought was the Canon EF 50mm 1.4USM.

 

I didn't notice you already had a 50. Jeff's right, keep using that until you feel a different focal length would

suit you better. For me, anything longer than a 50 feels like a telephoto and removes a lot of

photographer/subject engagement that drives good portraiture. Also, indoors at longer focal lengths makes

any kind of environmental portraiture tough (unless you are planning on head shots).

<p>The 85/1.8 is a excellent lens and a great buy. If you want to go a little longer the 100/2 is very similar.</p>

If by portrait you mean a traditional focal length, the. 85mm

f/18 is a fine and inexpensive lens.

 

Dan

<blockquote>

<p>“which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light. [on a 5D format]”</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Wear out the 50/1.4, it is very good for that application.<br>

A 35/1.4 and 85/1.2 or 1.8 would make nice partners for the 50.<br>

I would buy the 35/1.4 before an 85: most definitely.</p>

<p>WW</p>

<p>Your camera works very well in low light, so a super-fast aperture like f/1.4 or f/2 is not really necessary. You may consider a zoom lens like Canon's 24-70 for indoor portraits.</p>

<p>Changing camera systems usually implies to explore all possibilities before the jump but the important is to verify how happy and amazed you are with your brand new 5D Mk III and you're perfectly on schedule to perform your research now, so instead of advancing some subjective suggestions here is a link to the professional lineup of Canon lenses (the L series) that will make your new body really shine according to your needs and preferences:<br /> http://www.usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineup</p>

<p>My recommendations would be the 85/1.8 and / or the 24 -105 L f4 for people on full frame. I found the 24-70 L f2.8 was a bit heavy for my liking though a very good lens.<br>

For landscapes I normally use a 17-40 L f4 or if you have lots of cash the 16-35 L f2.8. The 17-40 L is a nice lens for the money and will be sharp edge to edge if stopped down a little from f4. Of course there is nothing to stop you using longer lenses for landscapes too.</p>

<p>I too made the transition from Nikon (D2xs) to Canon, but to a 5DII. I bought the 24 mm TSE-II as my first lens and a Sigma 50mm 1.4 after. I am pleased with both, especially the 24mm. I will buy the 90mm -TSE someday.<br>

One of the advantages of the EOS system is that, with the use of adaptors one can use lenses made a half century back, including most Nikkor lenses. Certainly if money is not an issue then Canon's own L lenses are hard to beat. Then there are the Zeiss lenses to consider.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I mainly do landscape photography but on occasion some portrait work too. My question is, which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light.<br /><br />And, I also need some suggestion for landscape lenses.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is no single optimal focal length for portraiture, just as there is none for landscapes (as the respodents here have implied).</p>

<p>For portraiture with my full frame and crop bodies, I use focal lengths between 35mm and 200mm. For primes, I use the 35/1.4, 50/1.4, 85/1.2 and 135/2. I have only one zoom, the 70-200/4 L IS, which I find to be superb outdoors.</p>

<p>As for landscapes, the range is 24mm to 300mm, depending on whether I want to have a more encompassing field of view or to isolate details. I don't shoot with really wide fields of view, so I don't use ultrawides, and this applies to my landscape work as well.</p>

<p>OP wrote: "My question is, which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light."</p>

<p>I'm astonished by the number of people recommending a 35mm prime for this on full frame. I'm not saying that you can't do indoor portrait work with that (or a fisheye, it that floats your boat) but it is an outlier suggestion for sure on this camera.</p>

<p>To those who aren't sure themselves what focal length they need for such a thing, I always strongly recommend a zoom that covers the potential focal lengths as a better starting point than guessing about which prime might be right.</p>

<p>dan</p>

<p>I'd stick with your 50 as the others say for the moment. Don't go for head shots with it unless you want distortion which may not make you friends (if they don't see the pics then it doesn't matter).</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OP wrote: "My question is, which would be a good portrait lens for indoors. I mostly work with natural light."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There are considerations <strong><em>other than</em></strong> Focal Length, for this particular niche of Portrait Photography.<br>

Physical characteristics of the tools are also major consideration, for me.<br>

That is one of the reasons why I have two different EF 50mm Prime Lenses; and also two different EF 35mm Prime lenses; and also why I choose whether or not to mount the battery grip on my 5D before entering the indoor venue; and whether or not to use a camera strap or wrist grip, or neither.</p>

<p>WW </p>

<p>I have shot a number of portraits AND landscapes with this portable, versatile, and extremely sharp Canon lens, and I'm always pleased with the results.</p>

<p>70-200 f/4L IS</p>

<p>My favorite landscape lens is the TS-E24 f/3.5L II, but the 70-200 is probably second on the list.</p>

<p>Taken with the 70-200 f/4L IS on a 5D Mark II</p><div></div>

<p>There are, indeed, considerations other than focal length. People with experience and strong points of view will make a range of decisions about lenses that might point to a variety of prime lenses for use for portrait work depending upon their individual preferences. (I acknowledged this in my previous post.)</p>

<p>However, there is always a risk that forum writers will recommend "what I use" rather than trying to determine what the poster might need. In this case, there is little to suggest that our OP has unusual requirements that would call for a rather wide lens for this work. Without out any such indication, we are left to offer explanations of reasons to select a variety of lens types, to repeat a "standard" recommendation (and 85mm primes are within that category on full frame), to recommend a zoom as a way to learn more about focal length and come to a more specific conclusion, or to offer up our own preferences along with an acknowledgment of our underlying preferences and how they might differ from those of the OP.</p>

<p>I stand by my observation that while 35mm primes could be used for portrait work on full frame bodies, that is regarded as an unusual suggestion.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>The 70-200 f/4L IS offers excellent IQ in a lightweight package.</p><div></div>

<p>Which lenses did you like on your Nikon camera?</p>

<p>"The 70-200 f/4L IS offers excellent IQ in a lightweight package."</p>

<p>Excellent suggestion. That focal length covers both the portrait focal lengths and can be very useful for landscape. While some feel that wide to ultra-wide lenses are the "landscape lenses," I personally use this lens for my own landscape shooting far more often than I use my ultra-wide. </p>

<p>YMMV.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<blockquote>

<p>That focal length covers both the portrait focal lengths</p>

</blockquote>

<p> <br>

It's ideal for indoor portraits if you live in Buckingham Palace. I don't see the requisite royalty designator in front of the OP's name however, so I would guess that more modest rooms are the case, and unless the photographer and the subject are standing in opposite corners, it's going to be a little tight. </p>